ERIC Digest 117 - January 1998
Student Dress Codes
By Lynne A. Isaacson
In recent years, schools across the country have experienced
violence, gang activity, and thefts of clothing and accessories. Many
school boards, mindful of their responsibility to provide safe school
environments for students, have implemented policies specifying dress
codes or the wearing of uniforms.
As many as 25 percent of the nation's public elementary, middle,
and junior high schools were expected to implement dress-related
policies during the 1997-98 school year, according to the
California School News (March 31, 1997). Ten states allow
school districts to mandate school uniforms.
Educators and the public are divided over the value of
implementing school-uniform policies in the public schools. This
Digest examines arguments for and against school-uniform policies,
identifies legal considerations, and offers guidelines for
implementing policies on student dress.
What Are the Arguments in Favor of School Uniforms?
One of the chief benefits of school uniforms, say proponents, is
that they make schools safer. Uniforms are said to reduce gang
influence, minimize violence by reducing some sources of conflict,
and help to identify trespassers. Parents benefit because they are no
longer pressured to buy the latest fashions, and they spend less on
their children's clothing.
Uniforms are also claimed to help erase cultural and economic
differences among students, set a tone for serious study, facilitate
school pride, and improve attendance (Cohn 1996, Loesch 1995,
Paliokos and others 1996).
Proponents also say uniforms enhance students' self-concepts,
classroom behavior, and academic performance (Caruso 1996).
What Are the Arguments in Opposition?
Opponents contend that school-uniform policies infringe upon
students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression; interfere
with students' natural tendency to experiment with their identities;
are tools of administrative power and social control; offer a
piecemeal approach to issues of racial and economic injustice; and
may discriminate against students from minority backgrounds (Caruso
1996, Cohn and Siegal 1996).
Some believe uniforms will not erase social class lines, because
policies do not apply to other items that can be used to convey
status, such as jewelry, backpacks, and bikes. Uniforms may not be
feasible in high schools, because older students are more
independent. Others argue that it is wrong to make children's right
to a public-school education contingent upon compliance with a
uniform policy (Caruso, Cohn and Siegal).
What Are the Outcomes to Date?
Most preliminary findings come from the Long Beach (California)
Unified School District, the first U.S. public school system to
require uniforms for elementary and middle school students. Before
implementing its policy in September 1994, the school district
required approval from two-thirds of the parents (Caruso 1996).
Long Beach Superintendent Carl A. Cohn reported that during the
first year suspensions decreased by 32 percent, school crime by 36
percent, fighting by 51 percent, and vandalism by 18 percent (Cohn).
At Whittier Elementary, attendance rates have risen each year since
the policy went into effect, reaching a high of 96 percent (Caruso).
Schools in Chicago, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New
York, and Virginia have made similar claims (Caruso).
Parents have responded favorably to uniform policies. In Long
Beach, only 500 parents petitioned to opt their children out of the
mandate. In a national marketing survey conducted by Lands End, a
Wisconsin-based clothing catalog company, respondents agreed that a
uniform policy "could help reduce problems associated with dress,"
and most felt the price was "about the same or less than the cost of
a regular school wardrobe" (California School News).
California requires school districts to subsidize the cost of
uniforms for low-income students.
A 1996 survey of 306 middle school students in the Charleston,
South Carolina, County School District found that school uniforms
affected student preceptions of school climate. Students in a middle
school with a uniform policy had a significantly higher perception of
their school's climate than did students in a school without a
uniform policy (Murray 1997).
Student reactions range from delight at not having to decide what
to wear to displeasure at looking like a "nerd." It is important,
therefore, to include students as well as parents in the
uniform-selection process.
What Legal Issues Are Involved?
To date, most legal challenges to dress-code policies have been
based on either (1) claims that the school has infringed on the
student's First Amendment right to free expression or (2) claims
under the Fourteenth Amendment that the school has violated the
student's liberty to control his or her personal appearance (Paliokos
and others 1996).
First Amendment Claims. The clash between students' rights
of free expression and the responsibility of public-school
authorities to provide a safe learning environment is the central
issue in the debate over dress-code policy.
In developing a ban on gang-like attire, whether through
implementing a dress-code or a school-uniform policy, administrators
should ask: (1) Is there a direct link between the targeted attire
and disruption of the school environment? and (2) Is the prohibition
specific enough to target the threatening attire without infringing
on students' rights? (Lane and others 1994).
"Any dress restriction that infringes on a student's First
Amendment rights must be justified by a showing that the student's
attire materially disrupts school operations, infringes on the rights
of others at the school, or otherwise interferes with any basic
educational mission of the school" (Grantham 1994).
To defend its action if challenged in court, a state must
carefully define its interest when authorizing school districts to
implement mandatory uniform policies. Policy-makers must be able to
document that a problem exists (Paliokos and others).
Liberty Claims. Most challenges claiming a violation of the
liberty interest have dealt with restrictions on hair length. Courts
have been evenly split on whether a liberty interest exists. "Most
courts that uphold the restrictions give the policy a presumption of
constitutionality and place the burden on the defendant to show it is
not rationally related to a legitimate school interest.... Those
courts that strike down such regulations have found that schools
impose unnecessary norms on students" (Paliokos and others).
What Are Some Guidelines for Implementing Policies?
Lane and others offer the following advice to policy-makers:
Before implementing a dress-code or school-uniform policy, be able to
justify the action by demonstrating the link between a kind of dress
and disruptive behavior; consult with a school attorney; and make
sure the policy is enforceable and does not discriminate against
racial/ethnic minorities.
In regard to uniforms, Paliokos and others recommend that
policy-makers address three key questions: Are the requirements
legally defensible? Do they actually restore order? Are less
restrictive dress codes a better alternative? For example,
policy-makers can consider five alternatives ranging from least to
most restrictive:
1. Do not institute a dress code.
2. Institute a dress code that outlines general goals, and let
principals and local school officials formulate and implement policy
at the grass-roots level.
3. Institute an itemized dress code that will be applied
throughout the district.
4. Authorize a voluntary uniform policy.
5. Authorize a mandatory uniform policy with or without a clearly
defined opt-out provision.
Then policy-makers should decide whether to let schools choose
their own uniforms and whether to offer financial help to low-income
families (Paliokos and others).
Whichever policy is chosen, successful implementation depends on
developing positive perceptions among students and parents, making
uniforms available and inexpensive, implementing dress-code/uniform
policies in con- junction with other educational change strategies,
allowing for some diversity in uniform components, involving parents
and students in choice of uniforms and formulation of policy,
recognizing cultural influences, and enforcing the rules evenly and
fairly.
Superintendent Cohn credits his district's success to a stable
school board, supportive parents and community, resources to defend
the policy, capable site administrators, and community philanthropic
resources.
Resources
"California Leads Nation in Public School Uniform Use."
California School News (March 31, 1997): 4.
Caruso, Peter. "Individuality vs. Conformity: The Issue Behind
School Uniforms." NASSP Bulletin 8, 581 (September 1996):
83-88. EJ532 294.
Cohn, Carl A. "Mandatory School Uniforms." The School
Administrator 53, 2 (February 1996): 22-25. EJ519 738. Cohn,
Carl A., and Loren Siegal. "Should Students Wear Uniforms?" Learning
25, 2 (September/October 1996): 38-39.
Grantham, Kimberly. "Restricting Student Dress in Public Schools."
School Law Bulletin 25, 1 (Winter 1994): 1-10. EJ483 331.
Kuhn, Mary Julia. "Student Dress Codes in the Public Schools:
Multiple Perspectives in the Courts and Schools on the Same Issues."
Journal of Law and Education 25, 1 (Winter 1996): 83-106. EJ
527 561.
Lane, Kenneth E.; Stanley L. Schwartz; Michael D. Richardson; and
Dennis W. VanBerum. "You Aren't What You Wear." The American
School Board Journal 181, 3 (March 1994): 64-65. EJ481 325.
Loesch, Paul C. "A School Uniform Program That Works."
Principal 74, 4 (March 1995): 28, 30. EJ502 869.
Murray, Richard K. "The Impact of School Uniforms on School
Climate." NASSP Bulletin 81,593 (December 1997):106-12.
Paliokas, Kathleen L.; Mary Hatwood Futrell; and Ray C. Rist.
"Trying Uniforms On for Size." American School Board Journal
183, 5 (May 1996): 32-35. EJ524 358.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. OERI RR93002006. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of IES, ED, or the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.
Ordering Information: Single paper copies of this ERIC Digest are available from the Clearinghouse while supplies last. Although there is no charge for the materials themselves, a postage/handling fee of $3.00 is required to cover the Clearinghouse's expenses. This fee is waived if (1) you enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope or (2) you order other materials for which there is a charge. Send orders for paper copies to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207. Make checks payable to University of Oregon/ERIC.
|
